Archives

IN THE DARK: “LIES FROM BC HYDRO”

The following item was written by Roger Bryenton P. Eng. (former), MBA, Energy Systems Consultant, Suzuki and SPEC Elder.

What BC Residents Have and Have Not Been Told About Site C Dam and Electricity Prices:

1. “BC Needs More Electricity” – the Biggest Lie.

BC Hydro assessed hundreds of options as part of their Integrated Resource Plan, and Appendices (RODAT). Conservation or Demand Side Management can contribute more in savings than the entire Site C project would provide. And all the savings are at the point of use and save transmission and distribution losses – a bonus of at least another 6% to 8%. This is 1100MW of capacity, or 5100 GWh of electricity per year. The average capacity of Site C is only 580 MW!

– In addition there are 400 MW of savings BC Hydro did not include, that are routinely used to manage demand peaks. Plus, there is Burrard Thermal, roughly 1000 MW!

– There are over 1000 MW’s that BC is entitled to under the Columbia River Agreement!

– There are hundreds of small generators that could be utilized during peak periods, a few hours a year.

What are they thinking? We do not need more electricity.

2. The “Real” Cost of Site C – No figures are given for getting the electricity to people – another 1 to $2 Billion – maybe more?

The “original cost” of Site C was projected to be $8.8 Billion. This is equivalent to $95/MWh, at the point of interconnection, in the Peace region. This was artificially reduced by BC Hydro choosing another more favourable discount rate, from 6% to 5%, creating the illusion of a lower cost for power, $58 to $61/MWh. Adding the cost of transmission and distribution to most of the customers, in the Lower Mainland, is another $1 to $2 Billion. The actual cost of Site C is now $145/MWh according to leading economists. Site C is about the 20th of 200 projects in cost. Conservation is the least expensive at one third to half the cost of Site C, followed by many lower cost renewables: small projects better suited to matching any increases in demand.

3. What are the Risks? Interest Rates, Demand for Electricity, Cost Over-runs.

Demand – If the “need” for electricity drops, and a project that is not needed begin with has to be paid for. Wrong assumptions guarantee wrong answers. Mistakes today result in major corrections needed tomorrow. Big mistakes today can result in disastrous consequences tomorrow. When interest rates rise, the project costs will also increase. Remember 1981 when interest rates rose to 18% – that doubles the cost every 4 years! What about inflation, technical complications and wage increases? They will also increase the cost of the project.

4. Is New Power Cheaper than Saving Power? NO! Not by a long way.

Conservation – “wasting less” can save as much power as Site C will generate. It will do it at roughly half the cost according to BC Hydro’s own numbers! With an average capacity of 580 MW, the real cost per kW from Site C is $8.8 Billion/580 MW, or over $15,000/kW! It is worthwhile for BC Hydro to invest up to $15,000 to ensure that they could save a single kW of electricity at peak times. That would be serious DSM!

New power will be expensive. Just the interest cost on $8.8 Billion at 5% is $440 million / yr.

5. Double the Number of Jobs, from Conservation

Conservation – wasting less, will create more than double the number of jobs that Site C will. These jobs will be geographically diverse – across the province wherever electricity is presently used. Under a “Conservation strategy”, workers will not have to relocate for short term assignments, they can stay where they are, keeping families intact and making a difference to their communities.

6. No Utilities Commission Review

The BC government decided and legislated that the Site C power project would be built. The BC Utilities Commission , which until now, oversees every electricity rate review, addition, change or removal, was specifically excluded from reviewing the Site C project. Why? Because the government knew there was no justification for Site C, and rammed it through. No questions asked!

7. Follow the Money – Who “Wins”

On an $8 Billion project, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money!! Premier Christy Clark and her Cabinet Ministers will be well looked after when they retire from politics, and their patrons remember how much money flowed into their hands during this project, and possibly into re-election campaign funds as well. Watch and see.

8. Pork Barrel Politics? “Let’s pretend this is a good idea, and it will create jobs!” It will be our “legacy” project.

For an unnecessary project, with no economic or financial benefit, and a “real” legacy of trespassing and denying First Nations their constitutional treaty rights, flooding an irreplaceable farmland valley, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and worsening climate change conditions, it is morally obscene for any politician to pretend that this project is of “lasting benefit”.

9. Future Rate Increases – Let Our Children and Grandchildren Pay.

New Supply – BC Hydro’s internal criteria for new projects is that they must be “Incremental” as well as “Lowest Cost”. How is an 1,100 MW massive dam and powerplant either incremental or lowest cost? BC Hydro’s own analyses show conservation is the lowest cost! It is also incremental. It was rejected in favor of Site C. Lowest cost, incremental, conservation will reduce future rate increases.

New Connection Costs – Utility rates need to reflect the ongoing cost of new supply. How then, can BC Hydro justify huge incurred costs, with a tiny increase of connection cost?. 200 amp service, or 25kW, costs $496, or $500; 400 amp service or 50kW costs $798, $800 nominally. Thus BC Hydro is sending a message that it will only cost $300 for an extra 25k W of capacity. That is about $12/kW. Remember the $15,000?

Assuming that Site C will cost about $8 Billion for 1000 MW of capacity, that would be equivalent to $8000 per kW, actually $15,000 (see point 4 above). Yet they are offering it to large residential homeowners with spas, point of use water heaters, air conditioning, and other large loads – radiant floor heating, electric stoves, clothes dryers and water heaters, at $12/kW. How is that message consistent with a cost of new supply at over $8000, more than 600 times greater?

Wrong messages will not reduce demand, and eventually must be paid for, with massive rate increases.

Recent BCUC hearings attempted to determine an appropriate allocation for residential rates, using an approximate 50:50 split between energy and capacity costs, to be reflected by a rate which is then 50:50 energy and capacity. The folly of these 2015-2016 Rate Design hearings is that a 1100 MW addition, from Site C, is only a 10% capacity/demand increase but results in a 40% increase in debt. What happens to the 50:50 split in 8 years when a 40% increase in costs must be attributed?

A 10% increase in capacity should only result in a 10% increase in costs, ideally. By spending 4 times that amount, 40% debt increase, the capacity allowance should also increase by 4 times, thus the 50:50 split today will be completely wrong in 8 years.

Wrong calculations will result in wrong rates, distortions and future corrections are then needed.

10. Is Site C Really “Green”? No! It is An Environmental Disaster – It Floods Farmland, and Reservoirs Generate CO2, Methane and Mercury-Contaminated Fish

In a report on the Columbia River Treaty, it was noted that reservoirs require substantial mitigation; there are several recommendations about the nature of these effects. Yet BC Hydro and the Province of BC appear to have ignored these recommendations, as if they do not apply to the “pet project” Site C.

Reservoirs are known to generate CO2 and methane, as biological processes decompose algae, plant material and flooded riverbed areas. In upstream reservoirs on the Peace, fish are no longer safe to eat because of mercury contamination, another biological process of decomposition in the reservoirs. Traditional First Nations’ food supplies are substantially affected, and have been since these other power plants were developed years ago.

There are 50,000 acres of productive farmland and forests, enough to feed a million people, which will be lost forever. There are hundreds of families and wildlife supported by this farmland, which will be devastated by such an ill-conceived and completely unnecessary project.

The BC Government legislated the removal of this land from the Land Reserve, with no review, as part of the project approval process. This prevented normal reviews and project justification. There is no precedent for such an outrageous act of parliament. They completely ignored their own guidelines and policies.

Perhaps the greatest travesty is that both the Federal and Provincial Governments, and BC Hydro, have not complied with the Treaty rights of the First Nations people that will be affected. This is completely unconscionable. Both governments have ignored the needs and wishes of these people. “Mitigation” has been relegated to “buy-offs”. How do you “mitigate” the destruction of a way of life that has endured thousands of years? What does the concept of “heritage” mean, and imply, and what are the consequences of destroying a culture?

13. What about Geothermal? – “BC Hydro does not have enough data”.

During the Joint Review Panel (Federal-Provincial) process it was revealed that BC Hydro had not seriously evaluated the possibility of using geothermal power – “they did not have enough data”. This is inexcusable!

There are hundreds of geothermal powerplants around the world. Ormat, one of the leading equipment suppliers and developers, state that “industry average” costs for a 50MW plant are in the range of $200 – $250 million US. With an exchange rate of .75 that is under $350 million Canadian. With a plant output steady at 50MW, it would take 580MW/50MW per plant = 11.6 plants, which would cost in the order of $4 Billion, less than half the cost of Site C. And it would not be an “all or nothing” case. 50MW plants could be installed as demand grows, not one huge dam – all or nothing! The industry average cost of power is in the order of 5 cents to 7 cents/kWh, as confirmed by the Canadian Geothermal Association. Site C will be in the order of 10 Cents/kWh, possibly more.

14. BC Hydro “Accounting” – Living off the Credit Card!

BC Hydro is using “deferral accounts” to hide the real cost of operations and Site C. This is “living off the credit card”, or using “equity” in your house to borrow money to live on. What happened in 2007-2008? People could not afford the payments and sent the US into a depression; the world into a recession. BC Hydro is aiding in creating the next recession – we cannot use debt financing, hidden from public scrutiny without serious financial implications!

15. “Water, Water, Everywhere” – Dammed Water is a Commodity

Under NAFTA, “Free Trade”, Canada cannot restrict exports of “commodities” to the US. Once dammed, the Peace River becomes water, subject to NAFTA. And a thirsty US, with droughts, wants our water.

16. Cumulative Impacts of Projects

When the Joint Review Panel reviewed the “Environmental Impacts” of Site C, the boundaries of the “affected areas” were cleverly designed to exclude existing industry and commercial activities. Thus BC Hydro’s Site C dam was not seen to have a “cumulative impact”. By ignoring the truth, the conclusion was much more easily reached – that cumulative impacts generally were not significant.

These are some of the “Lies from BC Hydro” to keep Customers and Residents of BC “In The Dark”

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

Great points made. It’s hard to imagine the BCUC ignoring the thinking expressed here, if they had been given a chance to review the case for Site C. The NDP’s John Horgan has promised to give the file to the BCUC, if the NDP win the election.

I find section 9 hard to make sense of. Perhaps charts and graphs would communicate the ideas better.

And he hasn’t even touched on the points made by tonyseba.com. Further confirms this excess energy will become redundant as storage and solar gain strength. Absolute, sheer idioticity. WRT to geothermal, it not only can be implemented as needed but also where needed. No more costly, unsightly transmission lines. (Well, not as many)
Why can we not fund some agency with credibility to purchase a front page article in the MSM to get this news to the general populace. I still fear we are preaching to the choir.

The suggestion a front page article is great. I too fear this information is only to the choir and not going broadly enough. Times Colonist a longer Comment piece, Vancouver Sun, desmog, National Observer? I think this is critical to do. It complements the strengthening of climate change plan by NDP, and moving to sustainable society, and just treatment of First Nations, and preventing destruction of agricultural land, and the unjustified changes of the ALR by Libs, etc etc Important to get this out soon as part of platforms of NDP, Greens.

A very valuable exercise in democracy would be realized by a televised debate on this issue. On one side of the table, John Horgan and Mr. Bryenton, and on the other Christy Clark and any one expert she wants to bring.

Surely the largest and most expensive infrastructure project in BC history would be worthy of this exercise. My guess however, is our Premier and major proponent of the project is neither worthy of such an exercise, nor agreeable to it.

She must therefore be removed from calling the shots on the project. Removal day is May 09, 2017.

This is a very well researched article that offers the truth. It must rattle the BC Liberal’s War Office. A white flag should be raised on Tuesday. The Minister of Corruption should resign.

Christy Clark must be feeling the heat from BC Hydro. Other than BC Liberal ads, it doesn’t appear that her followers are filling social media with praise.
Tuesday’s fictitious “Balanced Budget” will be like offering candy to playmates in an elementary schoolyard hoping to buy some friends. The bag of goodies being handed out are not from her bank account. The bribes are from the war chest financed by Liberal donors and the taxpayers.

Clark might learn a lesson from the province of Ontario Kathleen Wynne, Canada’s least popular premier before school resumes on Tuesday.

Kathleen Wynne admits high electricity prices are ‘her mistake’
“Wynne defended Liberal government … admitted that the cost “has burdened people in every corner” of the province.
“People have told me that they’ve had to choose between paying the electricity bill and buying food or paying rent,” Wynne said. “It is unacceptable that people in Ontario could be facing that choice. So our government made a mistake. It was my mistake.”

1. Oversupply of power

Ontario’s electricity producers are generating more power than we consume in the province. But the government is locked into contracts to purchase that power regardless. It sells off the excess to the U.S., at rates below the cost of production. And even though you aren’t consuming that power, you still have to pay for your share of it every month (through a line on your power bill called the “global adjustment”).

Christy Clark’s speech at 9 pm May 9th will read:
I made a mistake. I misjudged the electorate. I didn’t listen. I congratulate John Horgan and the NDP for running an honest and open campaign. As of this moment, I am resigning. Tomorrow morning, the BC Liberal party will rebuild and return.”

A google search offers some Karma advice for Christy Clark:

Image result for karma : I hope Karma slaps you in the face before I do.
Image result for karma: Karma has no menu. You get served what you deserve.

The accumulated provincial debt of $65,292 million has been incurred for various purposes as shown in Chart 1 below. Over the years, the proceeds from borrowing have contributed to economic development in the province and have provided resources to deliver health, education and social programs, and transportation infrastructure.

Snip

At March 31, 2016, self-supported debt totalled $22,565 million including debt of commercial Crown Corporations and agencies:
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ($17,928 million)
the Transportation Investment Corporation ($3,389 million)
Columbia River power projects ($459 million)
Columbia Power Corporation ($296 million)
British Columbia Lottery Corporation ($150 million)
commercial subsidiaries of certain post-secondary institutions ($310 million)
and debt of other government business enterprise ($33 million)

Your support

Reader assistance makes it possible to deliver fact-based analyses of public issues. Resource industries spend millions of dollars each year to advance their positions but my work is funded by readers, independent of any special interests.

Simple financial analysis demonstrates that management of BC Hydro during recent years was thoroughly incompetent. Largely, that is explained by policies and people imposed by BC Liberals on a utility that had served the public proficiently for more than four decades...

In the fiscal years 2016 and 2017, natural gas royalty payments totalled $291 million. However, credits owed producers increased $748 million so, if the province bothered to record these obligations as was recommended by the Office of the Auditor General, the royalty account had a two-year deficit of $457 million. A decade ago, two fiscal years — 2006 and 2 […]

If we had experienced more truthfulness from BC Hydro, the province would not be spending billions on Site C. Not only is the project an option more expensive than alternatives, domestic demand does not support the addition of any new sources of power beyond those involving upgrades of existing generating facilities.

The decision to proceed with Site C was not based on need for power by BC consumers. Demand is this province has been more or less unchanged since 2005... While the NDP has done much to change the direction of government in BC, they've been paralyzed when it comes energy policies. BC Hydro has been a troubled organization for years and it will not be re […]

Removing the impact of gas tax and GST, our American neighbours pay as much as 38¢ a litre less. That amounts to $23 for a 60 litre fill-up. Based on average consumption, we suffer about $1,000 a year in excess charges for each vehicle. It appears that industry collusion and lack of competition are main factors.

Dave Melrose, a reader who is in the solar installation business, commented on my previous article Death knell for net metering. He worries that people could be misinformed because I didn't make clear that self-generation of electricity remains viable for homeowners. People tell me a 15-year payback on solar installations is common, even without selling […]